9.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
10.  On 1 May 1983 the applicant, following clashes with the police during anticommunist demonstrations, was put by the police in their van and beaten. He was seriously injured. On 17 May 1983 he was discharged from hospital. A brain injury, post-traumatic epilepsy and permanent brain damage were diagnosed. Since then he has remained under permanent care in a psychiatric clinic.
11.  By a judgment of 24 June 1986, the Warsaw Regional Court granted the applicant compensation for damage to his health and held that a monthly supplementary pension be paid by the police – the State Treasury. The court observed that the applicant had lost the capacity to work and was disabled in the so-called second degree (an intermediate degree of disability).
12.  On 11 April 1990 the applicant was granted the first degree status of disability (serious disability).
13.  In 1990 the monthly supplementary pension was increased to 100 PLN as a result of a settlement between the parties.
14.  On 27 February 1993 the applicant's father lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court, in which he requested an increase in his son's monthly pension. On 8 March 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court remitted the case to the Warsaw District Court. Subsequently, six hearings were held in the case. On 15 September 1993 the court held a hearing. The defendant's lawyer asked for an adjournment in order to reach a friendly settlement.
15.  On 12 November 1993 the court held a hearing. The applicant increased the amount of the claim. The court decided to request certain information from the applicant's former employer. On 19 November 1993 the court obtained the requested information.
16.  On 23 November 1993 the court held a hearing. The applicant increased the amount of the claim. The court decided to request the psychiatric clinic for some additional information on the applicant's health. On 13 December 1993 the applicant's lawyer specified the claim. He requested the court to appoint an expert to give a report on the applicant's health.
17.  On 17 December 1993 the next hearing was held. It was decided to request the psychiatric clinic to expedite the preparation of the requested documents.
18.  On 27 January 1994 the court held its next hearing and interviewed witnesses. The applicant further specified the claim.
19.  On 6 May 1994 a hearing was held. The defendant contested the amount of the applicant's claim. The court decided to request the applicant's former employer to submit certain information. On 24 May 1994 the applicant increased his claim. Taking into account the value of the claim, on 25 May 1994 the applicant requested the court to remit the case to the Regional Court. On 23 June 1994 the Warsaw District Court remitted the case to the Warsaw Regional Court, as the latter had become competent following the increase of the applicant's claim. Subsequently, on 25 November 1994 and 21 December 1994 the defendant and the applicant submitted pleadings to the court.
20.  In January 1995 the applicant requested the court not to schedule any hearings in the period from 1 until 18 March 1995. In February 1995 the applicant requested the court not to schedule any hearings from 1 until 15 April 1995. On 19 April 1995 the applicant increased the claim.
21.  On 28 April 1995 the parties asked for an adjournment in order to reach an out-of-court settlement. Their negotiations subsequently failed. By pleadings of 18 May, 20 June, 20 July, 21 August, 22 September, 10 October and 21 November 1995 the applicant further specified his claim. On 14 November 1995 the court requested the applicant's former employer to submit certain documents. The documents were submitted on 21 November 1995.
22.  On 1 December 1995 the hearing was adjourned to give the applicant two weeks to submit his comments on the documents received by the court on 21 November. On 1 December 1995, 2 January 1996 and 22 January 1996 the applicant specified his claim.
On 23 February 1996 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the length of the proceedings. On 15 April 1996 he was informed that the case had been placed under the administrative supervision of the President of the Warsaw Regional Court.
23.  On 9 September 1996 the applicant lodged a motion with the Warsaw Regional Court challenging the presiding judge for an alleged lack of impartiality. This motion was dismissed on 18 September 1996.
24.  On 29 January 1997 the court received requested information from the applicant's former employer. On 5 February 1997 the expert submitted a report ordered by the court in November 1996. On 13 February 1997 the applicant's lawyer requested the court not to schedule any hearings in March 1997.
25.  On 17 February 1997 the court requested the parties to submit their comments on the expert report within the fourteen days' time-limit. On 26 February 1997 the defendant informed the court that he agreed with the conclusions of the report. On 11 March 1997 the court once more requested the applicant to submit his comments. Apparently, further questions were put to the expert. On 7 November 1997 the expert submitted to the court the supplementary report. On 1 December 1997 the applicant lodged his objections against the report.
26.  On 9 January 1998 the court held a hearing. The applicant requested the court to appoint a new expert. He once more challenged the expert opinion. The court refused and closed the hearings in the case.
27.  On 12 January 1998 the applicant increased and modified his claim to a very significant extent.
28.  On 16 January 1998 the court accordingly re-opened the proceedings. The court also gave an interlocutory decision that a certain sum be paid monthly to the applicant in order to secure his claim.
29.  On 4 March 1998 the applicant submitted motions as to the evidence to be taken. On 24 March 1998 the applicant submitted a new proposal for calculating the amount of the pension. On 8 April the defendant opposed that new proposal. On 24 July 1998 the applicant increased his claim.
30.  On 5 August 1998 the court held a hearing.
31.  By a judgment of 14 August 1998 the applicant's claim was partly dismissed and partly allowed. The judgment was served on the applicant three months later. The applicant appealed. By an order of 2 December 1998, he was requested to submit certain copies of documents for his appeal. This order was left by the postman at the applicant's door. Later, the post office returned it to the court marked “apartment closed”.
32.  On 29 December 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicant' s appeal for failure to comply with its order of 2 December 1998. On 5 January 1999 the applicant complained to the Warsaw Appeal Court. On 11 January 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal remitted the case to the Warsaw Regional Court and ordered the court to clarify whether the applicant wished to challenge the decision of 29 December 1998, or to lodge a request in order to reinstate the time-limit for submitting the requested documents.
33.  On 14 January 1999 the applicant appealed against the decision of 29 December 1998.
34.  On 26 January 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee of 50 PLN for the procedural appeal, which the applicant did on the next day.
35.  On 5 February 1999 the applicant received an order dated 2 February 1999 summoning him to pay 50 PLN in court fees. The applicant requested a meeting with the President of the Civil Section on 8 February 1999 in order to clarify what the court fee was for. The meeting did not take place as the President was absent on the date which had been fixed. The President apologised in a letter of 24 February 1999.
36.  On 12 February and 29 March 1999 the applicant specified his claim.
37.  By a decision of 29 April 1999, the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 29 December 1998 and rejected his appeal on the merits of the case for failure to comply with the procedural requirements. The court informed the applicant that he could lodge a request to reinstate the time-limit for submitting the documents requested by the court.
38.  On 16 June 1999 the applicant requested the court to appoint a lawyer under the legal aid scheme with a view to lodging a cassation appeal against the decision of 29 April 1999. He lodged also a “personal” cassation appeal. On 22 June 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed this request, but the lawyer was not appointed until 13 August 1999.
39.  In the meantime, on 5 August 1999 the Court of Appeal rejected the cassation appeal against the decision of 29 December 1998 for not having been presented by a lawyer as required by law.
On 20 August 1999 the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against the decision of 5 August 1999 with the Supreme Court in order to reinstate the time-limit for lodging the cassation appeal. The cassation appeal itself was submitted to the Supreme Court on 30 August 1999.
40.  By a decision of 7 December 1999, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 5 August 1999 for having been reached without due consideration to the applicant's pending legal aid application.
41.  On 31 January, 4 and 15 May 2000 the applicant specified the claim.
42.  On 25 May 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal reinstated the time-limit for lodging the cassation appeal against the procedural decisions of 29 December 1998 and of 29 April 1999.
43.  On 3 October 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 29 December 1998 and 29 April 1999 for procedural defects.
44.  On 12 January 2001 the applicant increased his claim.
45.  By a letter of 16 February 2001, the Warsaw Court of Appeal informed the applicant that the next hearing in the appellate proceedings would be held on 16 March 2001.
46.  On 29 March 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 14 August 1998. The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 June 2001.
47.  On 2 July 2001 the applicant's lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 20 December 2001 the court rejected the cassation appeal, considering that it had not been shown that arguable grounds existed which would justify the examination of the appeal.